T to Dyre Avenue

Some of the trips you're looking at may involve changing at Jamaica. The system shows direct and transfer trips. It also doesn't tell you where the second train is coming from because most people looking at the schedules don't need that info.

Hempstead and Far Rock do. There's also limited rush hour service from (I think) Long Beach and West Hempstead.

The extended subway would serve present riders from Hollis and QV. Most of the folks want the subway anyway, so this would be a godsend for them. But the big issue here would be dealing with that textbook-example of bureaucratic over-regulation, the FRA. The FRA does not like it when transit and mainline rail run on the same tracks and even makes a stink over transit and mainline trains running too close to each other on the same r.o.w. - even if on separate tracks. They do allow waivers, but as far as I know, they require some sort of time separation. That's not possible as far as subways and LIRR sharing the same train line is concerned.

Isn't that why the MTA schedules track work? It's normal wear and tear and they are maintaining the tracks when they take them out of service from time to time. Derailments are not reasons to build more subway lines. Then you would have more tracks to maintain and periodically take out of service. Would you spend millions (or even billions) of dollars to build a brand new eight-lane expressway just because the current parallel one is full of potholes and cracked asphalt?

Do the , , and trains ring a bell to you? Are you looking at a subway map that's missing those trains? Don't tell me they don't count. They run parallel to (and help) the , and on the Upper West Side, Morningside Heights and West Harlem. The , and trains have no such help on the Upper East Side or East Harlem (or points south of the UES for that matter). That's where the comes in. Maybe also have a limited Upper 2nd Ave-to-6th Ave ( P ) service if the alone is not enough. Oh, one more thing - it's "there ARE no measures." Not "there IS no measures." "Is" is singular and "measures" is plural. Don't mix them up.

Right. This was why / skip-stop service had to go. There were too many busy stops to justify some of them being skipped. 157th was a -only stop and 145th and 191st were -only stops. But 191st was so busy that they eventually made it an all-stop station. All of the stations between 137th and 96th were always all-stop. They were (and are) too busy to be served with "half of a subway line."

It is better if the doesn't come back. Part of the problem was that there were too many stations above 137th St that had high enough ridership to justify being all-stop stations (stations where both and trains stopped). You had three all-stop stations in a row at 191st, 181st and 168th Streets. You also had 231st Street, an all-stop station just two stops below 242nd Street, so the also made three stops in a row at the start of its route. This was done because 231st is a major bus-subway transfer point for the many riders headed to/from Riverdale.

Why? Bowling Green and South Ferry are within relatively easy walking distance of each other. It might be faster to walk between the two stations than to go downstairs and wait for a shuttle train.

I remember riding the R142As on the express in the Bronx when they were new (summer 2000). They sure were fast on the Westchester Avenue el.

And just how often would and trains would be able to run if they have to share the 53rd Street Tunnel with these other trains? It can't be the same number of trains per hour as now.

As a former resident of Bayside (lived there from 2010-12) who works in Lower Manhattan, I would have welcomed a subway extension either along Northern Blvd or the PW Line with open arms. The Q12 and Q13 buses are very well-used routes that make a lot of stops on the way to or from Main Street, Flushing. Because peak fares on the LIRR are very costly and a monthly LIRR pass doesn't include any transfers to the subway, I took the bus to/from the subway at Flushing to cut down on commuting costs. Well, you get what you pay for. Pleasant, fast and convenient are not words I would use to describe that commute. And Heaven help you if there's a sick passenger or signal problem on the line. Now if the were extended eastward, there would still be problems with sick passengers or signal problems, but at least it would eliminate a slow bus ride and transfer for many people. As for the people who would protest and fight a subway extension because of the noise or the people it would bring, that's just NIMBY paranoia. Sorry to sound dismissive of people's concerns, but really, that's what it is. What would stop troublemakers from driving to Bayside or Douglaston to cause problems? Or what would stop them from taking a bus there? Subway trains don't automatically equal crime, drugs and shootings. This is not the 1970s or 80s. Maybe some folks like to think the rest of the City hasn't changed since then, but they are wrong. What hasn't changed since then is the City's rail and transit infrastructure and it's struggling to keep up with the demand of a city that has a lot more people than it did 30, 40 years ago. And much of that increased demand is right here in Queens. We have to do something to address it. Ignoring it is not going to make it go away. Maybe a subway extension to northeastern Queens is not the answer, I don't know. But what I do know is the PW line is underutilized, especially west of Bayside. Occasionally, I took peak local trains home to Auburndale when I was fortunate enough to learn about train troubles ahead of time. To my surprise, these trains had plenty of seats available. Perhaps increased service west of Bayside at more affordable fares (really, LIRR, $9.50 from Bayside to Penn one way?) with transfers to the subway and buses at Woodside and Penn Station would put more people on those trains. And it might help relieve some of the crowding on the and speed up the bus commutes for people who are only headed to Flushing, either as a destination or to transfer to another bus.

You mean a " to Dyre Avenue"? I would be in favor of doing that over hooking the into the Concourse Line, mostly because it also offers more travel options to the eastern Bronx. Really, the Concourse line doesn't need two full-time services and they would have to boot the rush-hour off the Concourse Line to make room for the . Running up 3rd Avenue would be an excellent option too; it would replace the long-gone 3rd Avenue el service. (It's why I choose that as my handle.)

I also think SAS should have at least three tracks, but with Phase 1 already dug, isn't it already too late to add a third track there? Perhaps future phases can have at least three tracks.

And the MTA must have ignored their complaints because R68s didn't return to the until it came home to the Broadway Line in 2001. Even then, the express still ran with slants. And when the returned to Brooklyn in 2004 and replaced the , it ran with - you guessed it...slants!

R211 (since the contract hasn't been put out to bid yet): Length: 75 ft Width: 10 ft Configured in pairs that operate in 4-car sets. In other words, a 4-car set that can be uncoupled easily and quickly. This way, if one car within the set has mechanical or structual damage, only two cars have go out of service instead of four and the other two cars can be coupled to another pair and continue in service. This also makes it possible to operate 6-car trains if ridership warrants it via an A-B-B-A-B-A configuration. Car bodies will be stainless steel. They will have on both sides four pairs of double doors plus one single door near the No. 2 (rear) end of each car. A-cars (cab cars) will have blue fronts that will look like the ones on the M7A cars on Metro-North. A and B (non-cab cars) will have a blue beltline strip along the sides and ends (like the R44s and R46s used to have). Interiors will have speckled light gray walls except for the wall separating the cab which will be red. Seating will be mostly tranverse with aisle-facing seats limited to right by the doors. Seats will be painted in red and have taller seatbacks to better support the backs and necks of taller people. Floors will be tiled dark gray with two lengthwise rows of red tiles near the seats. There will also be red tiles at each doorway that connect to the rows of red tiles. This will facilitate being able to locate where the exit doors are.

The MTA could have written it into the R160 contract that the cars be compatible with the older R143s. They did it in the past. Every B Division car from R16 to R42 was capable of running in the same train under normal circumstances. Same with A Division cars from R12 to R36. Even post-GOH, R32s ran with R38s and R40ms ran with R42s. There was even a married pair made up of an R40m and an R42 (put together because their original mates, ironically, were in a collision). Now we have three R143s sidelined because "it's not worth it" to produce another car that can run with them. Ridiculous, that's what it is.

It's too bad the MTA isn't considering converting Bedford Park into an "express" stop. By extending the southbound platform over the southbound local track and rerouting the southbound local track to the outside of the southbound platform (sort of a "reverse image" of the layout at Willets Point ), they could have another station where trains on all three tracks can platform. And with Bedford Park being a major transfer point, it might justify the existence of a service. Plus, the land west of the station is occupied by Concourse Yard, so it's MTA property.

Cheesy? How would it be "cheesy" if 207th became the new home for the train?

I'm guessing the white P, T, U, X and Y bullets are (or were) arranged the same way as the bullet on that roll sign. I once rode in an R32 car with its bottom rolls set on P with the P all the way to the left like that.

They already do. That's what the side destination signs on the trains and the overhead platform signs are for.

But they will not be able to use four-car R179 sets on the . That's what we get for the MTA insisting on ordering permanently linked four- and five-sets of trains (and linking the R62s and R68s into permanent four- and five-car sets) and for not buying new cars that can operate in the same train with the older ones.

Exactly. Just because most R32 rolls have just without any route info on them, doesn't mean they can't ever run on the . That is all you need to see to know that your train is a train. The R42, R62, R68 and retired R40 roll signs only show the route letter or number; nothing about what streets or lines the train runs on. Lack of route info has never been a problem with those trains. Setting the R32 rolls on without "Jamaica/Nassau St" next to it wouldn't be any different. I mean, it's not like the was rerouted to 6th Avenue and got a different line color.

Yes. I'm old enough (34) to remember those cars first going into service replacing beat-up, grafittied R15, R17, R21, R22, R29 and R33 cars (with the R29s and R33s getting overhauled and sent to the , and lines). What a relief it was to see these shiny new cars in 1984.

I'm surprised it moved under its own power. Maybe there's hope for it going back into service after all (I hope).

I do have to admit, the front looks nicer than the present (and incompatible) R143s and 160s. Bu then again, it is a an artist's rendering. Won't know for sure if it will still look that way when Bombardier gets set to build the prototype cars.